Home / Connecticut / Newington
240 Church St., Newington, CT 06111 · Capitol County · (860) 667-2256
180 certified beds, about 152 residents a day · For profit - Limited Liability company · Medicare and Medicaid since 1979
CMS Care Compare ratings, data as of September 1, 2026 · CCN 075286 · See it on Medicare.gov · Compare with other homes
At its most recent standard inspection, on November 12, 2025, inspectors cited 14 health deficiencies (the Connecticut average is 13.4, the national average 9.2).
Of 55 health citations since September 2021, 6 were rated as actual harm or immediate jeopardy to residents (1 immediate jeopardy).
CMS lists 4 fines totaling $120,238 in the last three years; the largest was $60,333, and the latest is dated February 11, 2026.
Nurses and nurse aides worked 3.12 hours per resident per day, against 3.73 across Connecticut and 3.86 nationally. Registered nurses accounted for 0.41 of those hours.
49.3% of nursing staff left within the year CMS measured (Connecticut average 37.4%).
CMS links it to Civita Care Centers, an affiliated group of 6 nursing homes.
Federal rules call for a standard inspection at least every 15 months, plus a visit whenever a complaint is filed. Each mark below is one citation, colored by how serious inspectors rated it. How to read a citation.
Under each citation, the quoted text is the inspector's own summary from the federal statement of deficiencies (CMS form 2567), word for word apart from a privacy scrub; CMS removes residents' and staff names before it publishes the text. The full notes are on Medicare.gov.
CMS rates every citation by how much harm it caused (rows) and how many residents it touched (columns). The count in each box is this home's, across all 55 health citations on file.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation/policies, and interviews, for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision and develop a plan to maintain the resident's safety during a scheduled room maintenance activity that required removal from his/her room. Resident #1 had known aggressive behaviors and preferred to remain in his/her room; however, when displaced into a common area without an established supervision plan, the resident was not adequately monitored and entered another resident's room, resulting in a resident-to-resident altercation with injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, interviews, facility documentation and policies for one (1) of three (3) residents (Residents #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the Resident Care Plan (RCP) was updated following a room change for a severity cognitively impaired resident with adjustment disorder, when the resident was moved from a room on the secured unit to a room on the non-secured unit after a resident-to-resident physical altercation.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, interviews, facility documentation and policies for one (1) of three (3) residents (Residents #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure a resident involved in a physical altercation received a harm clearance prior to returning to the facility.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #10) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure staff opened an access door to a resident unit in a safe manner to ensure a resident was not hit by the door. The failure resulted in a resident fall with injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of four residents (Resident #6) reviewed for therapy, the facility failed to ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate to include orthopedic consults, post wrist surgery documentation and related therapy notes as part of the medical record.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1), reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to adequately supervise a resident with a known history of wandering who ambulated independently, during a period with a higher than usual volume of visitors, to ensure the resident remained on the secured memory care unit when visitors were entering and exiting. Subsequently, the resident exited the secured memory care unit, ambulated through two facility hallways, exited the main facility entrance without staff knowledge, and was located by police 0.4 miles away from the facility. This failure resulted in the finding of Immediate Jeopardy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who had a history of falls, the facility failed to complete a fall risk assessment following the fall in accordance with facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #1) who were dependent on staff assistance with personal hygiene, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were implemented and dirty linen and a soiled incontinent brief were not left on top of the resident's table in the room.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the residents had a safe, clean, comfortable environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of clinical records, review of the facility assessment and interviews for four sampled residents residing on a secured nursing unit (Residents #32, #69, #161 and #173) and reviewed for involuntary seclusion, the facility failed to assess, care plan, demonstrate that the secured unit was the least restrictive setting, and obtain consents for residents who were selected to reside on the secured unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews and interviews for 6 of 6 sampled residents (Residents #31, #45, #49, #56, #62, and #64) reviewed for resident assessment, the facility failed to ensure quarterly MDS assessments were completed timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews during a review of the Infection Control Program, the facility failed to ensure environmental rounds were conducted/completed monthly, the facility failed to ensure infection surveillance data collection reports and analysis of infection trends within the facility were completed monthly, and failed to follow the policy and procedural measures developed by the facility to prevent the growth of Legionella and other water borne pathogens in the building water system.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews, during a review of the facility antibiotic stewardship program, the facility failed to ensure the antibiotic surveillance tracking report of antibiotic usage and outcome was collected and documented for analysis.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical records, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for two sampled residents (Resident #151) observed with medications left unattended at the bedside, and (Resident #178) on controlled anti-anxiety medication, the facility failed to ensure that medications were administered and failed to ensure documentation entered on the medication administration record was in accordance with professional standards of practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews for three sampled residents (Residents #1, #66 and #123) reviewed for pressure ulcer, the facility failed to ensure skin checks were being completed prior to the identification of a pressure ulcer and an assessment of a skin issue following identification as well as a provider order implemented and failed to ensure the low air loss mattress was set according to the physician's orders
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and interviews for two of four sampled residents (Resident #111 & 133) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the wheelchair leg rests were in place during resident transport to prevent an accident and failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided to prevent resident from smoking in the facility ground after repeated non-compliance with non-smoking policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and staff interviews for two of three nurse aides (NA #4 and NA #5), the facility failed to complete an annual performance evaluation.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled drugs was in place to sufficiently enable an accurate reconciliation of all controlled medications.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility policy/procedures and interviews, the facility failed to ensure expired or discontinued medications were removed from the medication cart according to facility policy.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews for two sampled residents (Resident#32, and Resident #173) reviewed for food, the facility failed to ensure the food tray ticket were accurate and fruit was available to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, review of facility policy, review of facility documentation, and interviews for one of five sampled residents (Resident #59) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to offer and/or assess for pneumococcal immunizations to the resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical records, review of facility documentation, facility policy/procedures, and interviews for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #59) reviewed for immunizations, the facility failed to ensure that the COVID-19 booster vaccination were offered and/or assessed to resident.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #4) reviewed for change in condition, the facility failed to ensure the provider was notified timely of a delay in obtaining STAT (immediate) laboratory work in accordance with physician orders, and failed to ensure the physician/APRN was notified timely of critical lab results.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #4) reviewed for change in condition, the facility failed to ensure laboratory work was obtained timely in accordance with physician orders, and failed to act on critical lab results timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on a review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for two of three residents (Resident # 2 and Resident #3) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision for residents with known wandering behaviors to prevent a resident-to-resident interaction.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review, facility documentation, and staff interviews for one of three residents (Resident #2) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure staff reported an allegation of abuse in a timely manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for three (3) of five (5) residents (Resident ID # 2, #3 and #7). The facility failed to ensure interventions were in place to address verbal altercations which occurred prior to a physical altercation between Resident #1 and Resident #2, and for Resident #3 and #7 the facility failed to ensure the residents were free from physical and psychosocial abuse.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for seven (7) of fifteen (15) residents (Residents #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7) reviewed for physician visits, the facility failed to ensure physician visits were conducted in accordance with state agency requirements.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of four (4) sampled residents (Resident #1) who was reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure the resident was treated in a dignified and respectful manner.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, interview, and review of facility documentation for two (2) of six (6) residents reviewed for the plan of care for Resident #4, the facility failed ensure a velcro stop sign was in place in accordance with the plan of care, and for Resident #6 reviewed for falls, the facility failed to follow a care plan intervention.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, interview, and review of facility policy for one (2) of three (3) residents (Resident #1 and Resident #6) reviewed for medication and treatment administration, the facility failed to administer a psychiatric medication to a resident with a schizophrenia and failed to provide wound care to a patient with a Stage III pressure ulcer.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of clinical records, interviews and review of facility documentation for one (1) of three (3) residents, (Resident #6) reviewed for activities of daily living, the facility failed to document activities of daily living each shift.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for five (5) of five (5) sampled residents (Residents #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8) who were recently admitted to the facility, the facility failed to provide the residents or their representatives a summary of a baseline or comprehensive care plan within forty-eight (48) hours of admission and conduct a care plan meeting.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #4) reviewed for resident rights, the facility failed to manage the resident's personal funds accordingly.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #4) reviewed for care and services, the facility failed to ensure a follow-up consultant appointment was scheduled timely.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for the one (1) of three (3) residents, (Resident #2) reviewed for care and services , the facility failed to ensure that a residents room was kept in a sanitary condition.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record reviews, observations, facility policy and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #1) who refused medications at times, the facility failed to ensure pre-poured, unlabeled medications for the resident were not left in a medication cup in an unlocked medication cart.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) medication rooms located at the nurse's station, the facility failed to ensure the medication room door on the dementia unit was closed and locked and failed to ensure the two (2) medication carts in the medication room were locked while the door was propped open.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews, for one of two sampled residents (Resident #375) reviewed for pain management, the facility failed to administer pain medication when the resident made a request to be medicated.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, the facility failed to provide a homelike environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of the grievances, review of facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents received a written copy of the summary/resolution and failed to identify that the resolution was discussed with the residents.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #59) with a therapeutic diet, the facility failed to ensure that an ordered assessment for speech therapy was completed.
Inspectors wroteBased on review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure accurate reconciliation of controlled medication in the facility's emergency automated dispensing supply unit.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure sufficient support personnel to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services safely and effectively.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, and interviews, for two of nine sampled residents (Resident #19, and Resident #116), reviewed for dining, the facility failed to provide menu choices.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to maintain a clean and sanitary kitchen environment.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review, and interviews for two sampled residents (Resident #16 and #375) reviewed for advance directives, the facility failed to obtain the most recent advance directive from the legal representative when the resident's code status changed and failed to ensure there was a physician's order indicating the resident's wishes related to cardiopulmonary code status, hospitalization, artificial nutrition, and intravenous fluids.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of two sampled residents (Resident #85) admitted to the facility in the past three months, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan to direct the resident's care needs.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, and interviews for one of two sampled residents (Resident #53) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure the Registered Nurse (RN) assessed a newly admitted resident with pressure wounds in accordance with professional standards of practice.
Inspectors wroteBased on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility policy, and interviews for Resident one of five sampled residents (Resident #92) reviewed for unnecessary medications and received psychotropic medication, the facility failed to complete an Abnormal Involuntary Motion Scale (AIMS) assessment every six months.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, review of facility policy and interviews for one of two medication storage rooms and one of three medication carts, the facility failed to remove expired medications from medication circulation.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, review of facility policy and interviews for three sampled residents (Residents #92, #97, and #116) the facility failed to ensure medical records were readily accessible and complete.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, observations, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for one of two residents (Resident #90) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure staff supported the resident's head, neck, and back in accordance with facility policy during a mechanical lift (Hoyer) transfer to prevent a fall with injury.
Inspectors wroteBased on observations, facility documentation review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared in accordance with standards for food service safety.
Inspectors wroteBased on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #222) reviewed for catheter use, the facility failed to ensure catheter was changed in accordance with the physician's order.
23 fire safety citations on file: 17 on November 12, 2025, 2 on December 12, 2023, 4 on September 9, 2021.
| Date | Penalty | Amount or length |
|---|---|---|
| February 11, 2026 | Fine | $22,315 |
| February 11, 2026 | Fine | $25,662 |
| October 31, 2024 | Fine | $60,333 |
| December 12, 2023 | Fine | $11,928 |
A payment denial means Medicare and Medicaid stopped paying for new admissions for that period.
Hours of care per resident per day, from the payroll records every home sends CMS. Higher means more staff time with each resident.
| Measure | This home | Connecticut | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| All nursing staff (RN, LPN and aides) | 3.12 | 3.73 | 3.86 |
| Registered nurses | 0.41 | 0.69 | 0.69 |
| All nursing staff on weekends | 2.87 | 3.37 | 3.42 |
| Nurse aides | 2.03 | ||
| Licensed practical nurses | 0.67 | ||
| Nursing staff turnover (share who left in a year) | 49.3% | 37.4% | 45.8% |
| Registered nurse turnover | 62.5% | 38.6% | 42.9% |
| Administrators who left | 2 |
CMS expects 3.53 hours a day for residents as sick as this home's (its case-mix figure). The staffing star compares the two.
Every nursing home sends CMS its staff hours for each day (the Payroll Based Journal). Here they are added up by quarter. The latest quarter is the one behind the figures above. In January to March 2026, nursing staff hours per resident were 3.21 on weekdays and 2.87 on weekends, 11% lower on weekends (nationally, weekends ran 15% lower). Contract or agency staff worked 9.0% of nursing hours, against 5.3% nationally. Total nursing hours per resident went from 3.25 in April to June 2025 to 3.12 in January to March 2026.
| Quarter | All nursing staff | Registered nurses | Weekdays | Weekends | Contract staff share | Days with no RN hours | Residents a day |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.12 | 0.41 | 3.21 | 2.87 | 9.0% | 0 of 90 | 152 |
| Oct to Dec 2025 | 3.56 | 0.40 | 3.64 | 3.35 | 17.5% | 0 of 92 | 151 |
| Jul to Sep 2025 | 3.43 | 0.45 | 3.58 | 3.04 | 18.9% | 0 of 92 | 154 |
| Apr to Jun 2025 | 3.25 | 0.50 | 3.43 | 2.81 | 18.0% | 0 of 91 | 161 |
| United States, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.75 | 0.62 | 3.92 | 3.33 | 5.3% | 0.5% of days | |
| Connecticut, Jan to Mar 2026 | 3.66 | 0.61 | 3.80 | 3.31 | 6.0% | 1.3% of days |
Hours per resident per day: staff hours in the quarter divided by resident days (the daily census CMS derives from resident assessments). Registered nurses include the director of nursing and RNs with administrative duties; aides include nurse aides in training and medication aides, as in CMS's own staffing measure. How these are calculated.
Staff pay reports
No staff pay figure for this home has passed review yet. A figure appears only after at least 5 reports from at least 3 different people, sent over at least 60 days, have passed review.
| Job | Median | Middle half | Employed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut, all employers | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $21.53 | $20.14 to $22.68 | 21,380 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $35.43 | $32.05 to $36.94 | 8,540 |
| Registered nurses | $49.39 | $41.40 to $58.58 | 40,110 |
| United States, nursing care facilities | |||
| CNAs (nursing assistants) | $20.67 | $17.91 to $22.55 | 534,270 |
| LPNs and LVNs | $33.86 | $30.05 to $37.40 | 188,210 |
| Registered nurses | $41.11 | $37.85 to $47.68 | 142,270 |
Hourly wages; the middle half runs from the 25th to the 75th percentile. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025. BLS has no separate estimate for medication aides. These are survey estimates for whole occupations, not figures for any one home.
The measures CMS uses for the quality star. Lower is better for every one of them.
| Measure | This home | Connecticut | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities has increased Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 21.5 | 17.9 | 13.9 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a catheter inserted and left in their bladder Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.8 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 0.7 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents experiencing one or more falls with major injury Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 4.4 | 3.5 | 3.2 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who newly received an antipsychotic medication Short Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 5.6 | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents whose ability to walk independently worsened Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 18.3 | 16.4 | 14.1 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents with pressure ulcers Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| Percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication Long Stay residents, 2025Q2-2026Q1 | 24.9 | 17.8 | 15.4 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who were rehospitalized after a nursing home admission Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 23.4 | 24.3 | 23.8 |
| Percentage of short-stay residents who had an outpatient emergency department visit Short Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 13.1 | 10.8 | 12.0 |
| Number of hospitalizations per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.1 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
| Number of outpatient emergency department visits per 1000 long-stay resident days Long Stay residents, 20250101-20251231 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.8 |
For a stay to recover after a hospital visit, these are the results CMS publishes for Civita Care Center at Newington's Medicare short-stay residents. On returning residents home or to the community, CMS rates it no different from the national rate (51.1% of residents, after adjusting for how sick they were). How to read these, and what Medicare pays for.
51.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 51.5% · Connecticut: 75 better, 2 worse
Rate of successful return to home or community from a SNF (risk-standardized discharge to community rate). Higher is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 131 eligible stays.
12.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 10.7% · Connecticut: 0 better, 3 worse
Rate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2022 to September 2024. 137 eligible stays.
10.1% this home
No different from the national rate
US median of homes 7.1% · Connecticut: 0 better, 2 worse
Percentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization (risk-standardized rate). Lower is better. October 2023 to September 2024. 78 eligible stays.
44.7% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut58.9% · US 56.6%
Percentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 76 residents counted.
3.3% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut0.0% · US 0.0%
Percentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay. Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 121 residents counted.
4.8% this home
Median of homes: Connecticut1.6% · US 1.7%
Percentage of residents with pressure ulcers or pressure injuries that are new or worsened (adjusted rate). Lower is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 121 residents counted.
Not reported
CMS note: The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Median of homes: Connecticut100.0% · US 98.7%
Percentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge. Higher is better. October 2024 to September 2025. 7 residents counted.
Source: CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program - Provider Data, released 2026-09-30. Better, no different and worse are CMS's own comparisons with the national rate, after adjusting for how sick residents were. Medians of homes and the state counts are worked out by us from the same file.
Legal business name: BH NEWINGTON LLC. CMS links this home to Civita Care Centers, a group of 6 nursing homes averaging 2 stars overall.
| Name | Role | Type | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ct6 Opco Holdco LLC | 5% or greater direct ownership interest | Organization | 100% | 10/01/2024 |
| Esnh LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10/01/2024 | |
| Jpnh LLC | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Organization | 10/01/2024 | |
| Pepper, Yehuda | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Schwarcz, Eli | 5% or greater indirect ownership interest | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| 240 Church LLC | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Organization | 10/01/2024 | |
| Schwarcz, Eli | 5% or greater mortgage interest | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Pepper, Yehuda | Managing control - governing body | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Altius, Christal | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Pepper, Yehuda | Operational/managerial control | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| 240 Church LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2024 | |
| Ct6 Propco Holdco LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2024 | |
| Esnh LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2024 | |
| Everflow Healthcare LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2024 | |
| Jpnh LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2024 | |
| Sfnh LLC | Adp of the SNF | Organization | 10/01/2024 | |
| Altius, Christal | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Friedman, Samuel | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Kagan, Jeffrey | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Pepper, Yehuda | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Schwarcz, Eli | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 | |
| Templer, David | Adp of the SNF | Individual | 10/01/2024 |
As listed in the CMS ownership file, which names owners with a 5% or greater stake and the people and companies with operational or managerial control.
Chosen from this home's own inspection record.
These are the official offices in Connecticut. NursingHomeClear cannot take or act on complaints.